Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- georgesIII-1
don't worry detritus,
once you get what you want, you'll learn to enjoy freezing to death in the winter times, people can't even afford to heat their home in the 1st world, yet you want to tax them even more,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busine…btw, nobody is saying that the earth isn't warming, but we have to keep on repeating ad nauseum that the main cause of it, is the fuckn shiny hot ball in the sky which is called the sun,
don't they teach in school that in the billions of years since it's creation, earth went through phases of warmth and cold numerous times, without the help of humans.
- They did teach that in my school, but that was 25 years ago.mikotondria3
- popfodders-1
^whiptiee fucking doo.. geologic evidence shows less than that, historic low my ass, yes our history, but not geologic history. get real... anthropological my ass.
- Nairn-1
You only really need one link..
http://environment.newscientist.…
Teleos - it doesn't take 'much' extra atmospheric CO2 to screw things over - and, as already discussed in that other thread a month or so ago - CO2 pollution is the visible edge of a much larger sword.
You clam up and remain as ignorant as you like - you've got your little godhead to placate your mores - just leave the rest of us to actually give a shit about looking after this fucking planet.
- Are you insane or brainwashed? Plants breather CO2- you planet protectorFredMcWoozy
- GeorgesII-1
Why is everyone is the so called developed world so afraid of dieing, but don't care for the million who are dying right now and those who will die if the global tax become law??
you ask me, I'd say fuckn hypocrites
- Nairn-1
uh oh..
- Nairn-1
Global warming's happening on Jupiter and Neptune?
Really?
Do you even know what the fuck a gas giant is?
- GeorgesII-1
today 181214 - 13 °C
loving it
- GeorgesII-1
sup khurram I don't know enough on that CFL, but I have them all around my house so a little googling gave me this, I repeat I don't know shit about the subject so no need to attack me.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/to…
- numbers-1
I dunno...I always figured the fact that the Earth has changed temperatures over time is something every kid learns in first grade.
Like no one ever heard of the Ice Age before? Or knew that for most of the world's history, it was much warmer?
I guess I'm just a little confused when I hear people using that as an argument against climate change. Because it doesn't have any bearing on whether humans can change the temperature themselves by pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Or indicate that everything will be just fine if the temperature does change drastically. After all the other characteristic of history is that lifeforms died out in large numbers, often corresponding to changes in the environment. So it seems like a strange parallel to draw IMO.
- JazX-1
- GeorgesII-1
just imagine the things that are under the sea,
their sea rise must have been a pain in the buttock
- Hombre_Lobo-1
^and now we move on to high levels of mercury found in several modern day vaccines including swine flu H1N1.
Mercury causes infertility btw and bizarrely some test show it causes autism.
what a wonderful money driven world we live in :D
- GeorgesIV-1
I for one is applying to a ticket with the breakaway civilisation,
there are tons of planets out there to colonize.
- panacea-1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB…
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
- DrBombay-1
What is the worst that could happen? We pay more for power and pollute less? BFD
- omg-1
It's unstoppable. The 99% can only sit back and watch the world burn.
- deathboy-1
oh and i saw your comments now scarabin.
adaptation and evolution and progess isnt created through policies. policies distort natural incentives of growth. policy can help but the path to hell is paved with good intentions and politcians prefer to push good inentions instead of reason these days. Most are unsound without much research. Their good intentions are smokescreen to promote their own self interests. They probably believe the good intentions will work out. But its so much easyier to believe a sweet lie than bitter reality.
And i not rather die than worry about environment. I think my views support a more natural take than a few cronie capitalist/politicans 1% saying they have the best of intentions that also serve their interests. I personally take the time to lower my impact because i care. The ones that are self serving in my natural environment. It just the right thing to do. Hell i dont plan on having any kids how much do i save there for global impact? Not to say other shouldnt, its up to them. But adds to a hypocritical viewpoint of the ones that believe strongly in conservation and changes in policies based environment control.
Its just a lot of bullshit and peopel playing tug of war to serve their own self interests and say its for the greater good. Once you accept the nature that stopping climate change or controlling it is out of the question its far easier to see the motives behind it.
- deathboy-1
@utopian
Why is the true boxes on both different? How does not planning and having a strong economy and everyone happy different than a mild recession if the shit hits the fan and a strong climate change happens. He draws to large conculsions from this without explaining his reasoning. I assume he wants u to assume spending and creating a recession will lead to the ability to control climate change. while the other of just doing what works for the larger number will create a bad future when climate change happens. If both take the same climate change blow id think the healthier economy with less of a recession will better weather the storm than those in the recession. right? if thats the logic... Unless there is implied climate controls and unequal climate effects based on decisions. If thats the case than what climate control supports were created at the cost of the recession and what did the naysayers do that create such a distructive outcome for them? I cant help but think that outlooks is silly too since its trying to generalize to viewpoints and make no claims in why they what reason they differ.